I know this is an age old question, but does anyone have any opinions regarding the Canon C100 vs. Sony FS700? I am in the market for a new camera. I will probably be using an external recorder and I am looking for the best quality camera. I originally will be using the camera to shoot films/music videos, but my day job is in Corporate Video, local spots, etc. It would be great if I could use the camera for both. I know there is no perfect camera but any suggestions?

The C100 isn't out yet. It won't be out until December. Only a handful of people have actually used one, and those were probably pre-production units. I don't see how anyone can give you a knowledgeable opinion until it gets into general circulation.
A producer friend has used the C300 and FS700 and he prefers the Sony. He says he likes the look and the slo-mo capabilities of the FS. YMMV.

How soon do you need a camera? Can you wait until next year?
There are many cameras that can shoot music videos, corporate videos, commercials, weddings, etc. You don't need several to cover all of these shoots. I do all right with my one FS100. I'm certain the C100 or the FS700 are up to the task.
The FS700 is upgradeable to 4K, if you need that feature. It also has an HD/SDI connection.

I am in the market for a new camera. I will probably be using an external recorder and I am looking for the best quality camera.

As Glen mentioned, the C100 isn't out yet -- so if you can't wait for the (as you say) "best quality camera" I suggest that you check out RED's cameras (Scarlet & Epic). But if you can wait, I'd wait for the Canon 1DC (also a 4k camera): http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/510608-eos-1dc-ship-december.html

-- peer

As Glen mentioned, the C100 isn't out yet -- so if you can't wait for the (as you say) "best quality camera" I suggest that you check out RED's cameras (Scarlet & Epic). But if you can wait, I'd wait for the Canon 1DC (also a 4k camera)

I'm sure if the OP had the budget for a Scarlet that's what he would have been looking at, but they are very different cameras at very different price points with very different workflows. As for the 1DC, well frankly an 8 bit 4k camera is a bit of a sideways step rather than a step forwards.

I doubt there will be much between the C100 and FS700 in terms of HD image quality. It's most likely to come down to which ergonomics you prefer, whether you need HDSDI and whether you want super slow mo and future 4k.

i believe the question should have been between C100 VS FS100 wich are almos tin the same price zone.

According to the specs and outside I believe that the only benefit that the C100 have againts the FS700 is only the ergonomics and nothing else.

Between the FS100 and the C100. the only better spec that the FS100 have is the 60p but am sure that Canon will release a firwmare update for this at one point.

Matt,

As indicated the C100 is not yet really available. However, I do have one on pre-order and the FS700 was the one I considered very hard as a serious potential alternative. My reasoning for why I chose the C100 over it (and a few other contenders) are on this link. This may help you or may not, I don't know, but I know a few others have found it worth reading.

CanonC100 (http://www.shootingimage.co.uk/MoreInformation/CanonC100/CanonC100.html)

If you're the cautious type, just wait for another few months and they'll be lots of comparative videos between the FS700 and C100, and many differing opinions. I think they both are/will be great cameras, each with strengths and weaknesses.

I've been waiting for nearly a year for the "next great camera" to supplement my EX3 and 7D (and TM900). I've got lots of work going on and I need a decent second camera NOW! The C100 ticked as many boxes as possible that I consider important (for the way I like to work and the type of work I do). Sometimes you've just got to go for the best option for your needs (and budget) at a particular point in time and put it to use!

i believe the question should have been between C100 VS FS100 wich are almos tin the same price zone.

According to the specs and outside I believe that the only benefit that the C100 have againts the FS700 is only the ergonomics and nothing else.

Between the FS100 and the C100. the only better spec that the FS100 have is the 60p but am sure that Canon will release a firwmare update for this at one point.
Anthony-
You are missing a really big thing on the C100....the very special 4K chip, the same that is in the C300 & the C500. It sees in the dark (up to 20,000 ISO which is usable but most are using 3200 ISO), handle light & dark in the same shot and gets them both right. That, along with the Canon log gives you a huge latitude that will save you money on every shoot. You'll use 1/3 of the lights you'd normally use. That is a big difference between it and the FS700 (which I like) and much more important than the SloMo.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Sensitivity and noise is almost the same between the C300 and FS700. They both have very similar sized photo sites, they are both using 4K sensors. FS700 has been measured at almost 13 stops with Cinegamma 4, although useable stops are around 12. Cinegamma 1 is close to Canon C-Log.

I doubt most people will be able to find any significant technical difference in IQ between the C100 and FS700. Colors are different, but both can be tweaked through picture profiles or in post as desired.

Would C-Log (or a cinegamma etc) save you money on a shoot? Maybe, maybe not. If you use Log then you'll need to grade, if you didn't grade previously then that will make your project more expensive, not less. Log and advanced gammas (C-log like S-Log is just a modified type of gamma) are certainly very useful, but if you want a look direct from the camera you'll probably use a less aggressive gamma curve.

Hi ISO's like 20,000 on the C100 or 12,800 on the FS700 are a bit of a nonsense on these cameras. Camera gain does not change the sensitivity of the cameras sensor, that depends above all else on the photosite size (and the C100 and FS700 are extremely close). Gain is simply a volume control for the sensor output. You can turn the volume up as much as you like but the camera doesn't really get any more sensitive. The image gets brighter, but so does the noise. You can add gain in post or in camera and the effect is similar. Pro's and cons to each. You can easily add more gain in post to make up for the 2/3rd stop difference between them.

If your lighting a scene you still need just as many lights with these cameras to achieve the same results. You might not need quite as much light, but if you need 3 lights to gain the look you want with one camera, you'll still need 3 lights with any other, just maybe not as powerful. Lights are used to control contrast ratios, and a more/less sensitive camera doesn't change the contrast ratios so there is often surprisingly little change in your lighting requirements when using more sensitive cameras. If you need to make something one stop brighter than another it requires the same amount of light to do that no matter what the sensitivity of the camera. Of course a more sensitive camera will allow you to shoot in darker environments when lighting is not an option.

Alright Alister, you got me...a little. We had a client come in the other day with the 700, so I put it up on our 50" TV Logic, turned the lights down and started running up the ISO, along with the C300. What I noticed is gain noise on the 700 was more than the corresponding ISO and grain on the C300. I'm calling it grain on the C300 because it looks like grain, a more organic look than the 700's noise....and that's what the ASC DP's have been saying for a while about the C300. Again, I like the 700, but I do like the overall look of the C300. The point being is the C100 has the same chip, and thus, the same performance in this area.

Just my opinion......but don't make me come over there Alister!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

They both have very similar sized photo sites, they are both using 4K sensors.
Yes, agreed, and it therefore follows that they will indeed be very similar in respects such as sensitivity.

It is worth mentioning that I'd expect the C100 to have similar resolution to the C300 - so pretty much up to the 1080 spec, about 1000lpph horizontally and vertically. For some reason, in spite of virtually the same chip, the FS700 resolution is similar vertically, but less horizontally, more like 800lpph. So in absolute terms this is likely to be one area where the C100 may have a measurable edge - certainly on charts.

Practically, I'd doubt you'd see much difference between them in the real world, and both of them are far better than performance from DSLRs of the AF101. I'd be more inclined to base any purchasing decision more on feature set, ergonomics etc than absolute IQ and in that respect the slo-mo abilities of the FS700 must be significant.

Jim, was the test performed with the same lenses on both camera? One thing that many people fall foul of is comparing the FS100/FS700 with the very slow f3.5 kit lens to a Canon with a f1.4/f2.8 lens and like that the Canon will appear much more sensitive. Put matching lenses on and any differences are very small.

I used to own a C300 and this was about 1/2 a stop less sensitive than my F3 and the FS100. I know the FS700 is half a stop less sensitive than the F3, so C100 and FS700 should be almost exactly the same, which is what I would expect given the similar pixel sizes.

Wouldn't want to upset you too much Jim or you might end up coming over here and you don't want to do that because the weather is rubbish ;-)

Which preset are you using on FS700 when comparing the noise levels?
There is HUGE difference between the widest DR presets and the preset that contains the ITU709 color profile - on our EU camera it's the preset number 3. The difference is like night and day. I use wide dynamic range PP5 for daylight and PP3 for low light as it has that organic looking noise.
Also for low light slow motion the PP3 with ITU709 is the best solution so far for us - acceptable noise levels up to 6400.

I made a little comparison here: Sony FS700 high ISO test: Picture Profiles? on Vimeo

T

I had the FS100, have the FS700 now and have seen some C300 Footage.

I think the FS100 and C300 are on the same level considering noise.

The FS700 is considerably (!) noisier than the FS100. With the FS100 I used ISO 1600 without any denoising and it was almost grain free. FS700 footage, though, I tend to denoise a little in a low key scene even at ISO 800. And the noise of the FS700 is not as grain like as on the FS100.

Thread moved here from Industry News.

Sensitivity and noise is almost the same between the C300 and FS700. They both have very similar sized photo sites, they are both using 4K sensors.

Camera gain does not change the sensitivity of the cameras sensor, that depends above all else on the photosite size (and the C100 and FS700 are extremely close).

If this theory would have been true then companies would not have done development of sensors independently. This theory, if true means, all 4K cameras with same sensor size will have the same high ISO ability, as the photosite size is likely to be similar. If that is the case, then camera companies would not be introducing cameras which has better sensors roughly every two years.

The size of the individual photosites in the sensor is one criteria. It is not the only one.

Companies are in the race to produce better sensors by also trying to maximise the amount of light gathering capability of the individual photosites. So you find development of gapless sensors. There is also advancement on the circuits which results in reducing the heat and noise generated.

There are some companies like Canon who produce the chips and the back end as well, so they are much better than other companies. Sony too produces its own chips. Some other camera producers buy chips and don't have the finer controls like Canon does. At the moment, Canon has taken a march over others in terms of sensor technology. I am sure soon others will also produce great stuff. That is the reason why people are liking the Canon cinema cameras and buying it, despite the initial brickbats.

When you said high ISO or gain is the amplification of the signal, and it can be done equally well in the post, it may not be theoretically true though it may so happen that visually at times one may not be able to distinguish in a small screen. It depends how you are processing it, means whether the gain applied by the camera is better or equal to that done by the software in a computer program. For a software program to become equal to the camera in this respect means, the company making the program understands the processing the way the manufacturer understands.

I have never used a FS700 and my comment was just to clarify a generalisation.

Pixel size is the primary factor that determines sensor sensitivity. If you take a sample of pixels sizes from the cameras currently on sale today you will see a direct correlation between pixel size and sensitivity across the board. It's no surprise that most 2/3" HD cameras are more sensitive than a 1/2" EX1 which is more sensitive than a 1/3" XF305, or that an old 2/3" SD camera will be more sensitive than any of those. Nor is it a surprise that the Sony F3, FS100 and Arri Alexa are almost identical and very slightly more sensitive than the C300 and FS700.

Canon has not taken a march over anyone else in terms of sensor technology. There is absolutely nothing special about the tech in Canons newer sensors. Yes they are reading out the sensor a little differently, but as far as I know the sensor tech itself is really no different to anyone else. Camera sensors (other than back illuminated sensors which only have an advantage in very small sizes) have not changed in terms of sensitivity for quite some time. What has happened in the video world is that sensors and thus pixels have become larger and as a result low light performance has improved. In both the video and stills world noise reduction has also improved. Until new materials that are more efficient at converting photons to electrons are discovered, photo site size is still the key thing that determines sensitivity. Modern pro level video sensors use micro lenses to overcome gaps between photo sites and achieve extremely high efficiencies as a result, typical QE's these days are around 70. If you look back 10 years you'll see that QE has not really changed much, just the use of high QE sensors has become more common place.

Gain is gain, there are differences between applying it in camera and in post, mainly to do with whether you add the gain before compressing and any compression artefacts or post compression and then use the significantly greater processing capabilities of a workstation to reduce artefacts and add noise reduction etc. in my opinion the best way to add lots of gain is to first use the very best codec you can, or uncompressed recording and add a small amount of gain in camera, then add the bulk in post where you have much better control. Sony, Canon, however could bring out cameras with even higher ISO's, it's a great marketing tactic, "buy our new camera because it's 100,000 ISO" and many people start getting excited by the idea of a mega sensitive camera, but the reality is that super high ISO settings are more noise than image. If you really could get sensible images simply by adding more and more gain then the military wouldn't have to use image intensifiers.

The C300/500/100 chip, using the Bayer pattern, is the 1st chip not being de-bayered. Me thinks that is contributing the the overall performance of the chip.....and Alister, we don't get weather here too much so visiting weather is great!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Ah yes Jim lives in the land of sunshine Alister. We live with the changing seasons.

As for the question at hand. I tired the FS700 twice and liked the camera but for my shooting the C300 is a better camera and better picture right from the cards. Hard to beat 422 50Mb/s with the latitude of this chip. And the glass options are very nice. Yes you can use an adapter on the FS700 and use the same glass but I think the C300 wins. Now if you really need over cranking well the FS700 is worth a go.

It wll be interesting to see if the AVCHD codec of the C100 negatively affects the low light performance - making the "grain" blocky and unusable. Until someone actually gets their hands on one and tests high ISOs, I'm not sure how they will compare. I'm hoping AVCHD retains the detail. If it works well, I might be looking at getting a C100 as a B-camera.

Thanks for all the info. Much appreciated. There are so many new cameras coming out...exciting times.. Thanks everyone for the info especially Alister, your wealth of information is invaluable. The fact that you share your wealth of knowledge, and without being arrogant or snooty, is frankly amazing. Sooooo much appreciated. I cannot thank you enough for your expertise!!!

Modern high end AVCHD encoders are very good. I would fully expect the AVCHD from the C100 to be very good. As the camera won't be noisy at lower ISO's noise should not be a big issue unless your really pushing the footage very hard in post. Same with the FS100/FS700 etc.

There is a push from some broadcasters now for 35Mb/s AVCHD for broadcast use as this would be comparable or better than 50Mb/s mpeg2. 24Mb/s AVCHD is now permitted in Europe for some broadcast news gathering applications.

I don't know. I tend to agree with A.C. about the two likely looking very similar.But having 'left' AVCHD behind in my HMC-150 for Canon's MXF 4:2:2 world i can say that i do not relish returning to it. Latitude in the 'real world' of mxf seems much better than AVCHD. Green screen seems easier. Grain feels more 'organic' and useable at higher ISOs.. OTOH my buddy's GH2 takes fabulous video, and i can match it pretty well in post. If the C100 was mxf, I'd already have one on order. I can't afford $15k for a camera, at this point, and frankly for web video don't think it's worth it. (i just watched PBloom's 'confluence' which is a great ad for staying with a 7D & 5d!). Then add the change of cards to SD, another cost I'd rather avoid, given my 7D, ( and the fact that i have found CF cards more reliable) it's just very disappointing. I am what seems a perfect candidate for the target market one would assume Canon is aiming for with the c100, i own a 7d, xf 105 and 305, love em, but if I am going to be forced into SD cards and AVCHD, I will take a very hard look at returning to Panny for either their GH3 or a Af100, used, and/or selling off my Canon gear. The stories i've read of Sony build quality on the 700 and 100 make me reticent to seriously consider them, as i shoot in bad weather & harsh conditions frequently. I also assume it will take more post work to match a C100 or Sony AVCHD footage withmy Mxf footage. So pure tech arguements are interesting but ultimately secondary. I will be very curious to see the real shipping C100 footage. I feel that canon is making a big marketing bet here, and could lose.

There is a push from some broadcasters now for 35Mb/s AVCHD for broadcast use as this would be comparable or better than 50Mb/s mpeg2. 24Mb/s AVCHD is now permitted in Europe for some broadcast news gathering applications.
To compare with 50Mbs MPEG2 you'd probably need more than 35Mbs - the higher the bitrate, the less point there is to H264/AVCHD. The compression advantages are less pronounced at higher bitrates.

And it begs the question "WHY"? Granted the file sizes may be a bit smaller, but we're probably only talking 20% lower or less for comparable quality. Is it really worth it - given that AVCHD needs more processer power for comparable performance.

If the lower bitrate meant much cheaper memory it may be worth it, but even that's not true now - the Canon records 50Mbs to Compact Flash cards.

Some of the desire for 35Mb/s AVCHD comes down to support from 3rd parties. AVCHD is almost universally supported these days, mpeg 2 in it's various mts ,m2t, mxc, mp4 wrappers is not as widely support in lower cost systems. I've seen some demos of 35Mb/s AVCHD and it's extremely good. Would also be possible to make it 10bit and 422 with only some small encoder changes.

When it comes to making cameras match, the codec used is the very last of your worries. Camera matching tends to be a function of the manufactures colorimetry, for example Panasonic look different to Canon who are different to Sony. The codec itself does not affect color, dynamic range or latitude, again this is a function of the camera front end. This is easy enough to demonstrate. Take the HDMI out from a Sony FS100 (AVCHD) and record it using a NanoFlash as an Mpeg2 MXF at 100Mb/s and you will be very hard pushed to see any difference. Obviously there is a difference, but this difference will only really become apparent when you start to push and grade the material in post where the 100Mb/s material will not degrade as quickly as the 24Mb/s AVCHD.

Ah thanks. That makes sense. That bit had slipped my mind. I do remember that I seemed to have a lot less latitude to play with in AVCHD, but that, as you say, is likely to be more an issue of the back end than the front. I suppose if I went directly to HDMI out capture, I would see the latitude expand, even in the lower end products. I certainly do when I go out of my little Panny TM900 and directly into a high end monitor.

A key issue will be what the Canon Log looks like and how much it helps. Given the sensor and the log, it's likely to be quite good. That's my bet for now.

35mbps AVCHD? I thought AVCHD's maximum bit rate was 28mbps.

35mbps AVCHD? I thought AVCHD's maximum bit rate was 28mbps.
Quite true - what Alister is referring to is a suggested extension to the specification. It doesn't exist as a standard yet.

I do remember that I seemed to have a lot less latitude to play with in AVCHD, but that, as you say, is likely to be more an issue of the back end than the front. I suppose if I went directly to HDMI out capture, I would see the latitude expand, even in the lower end products. I certainly do when I go out of my little Panny TM900 and directly into a high end monitor.

The codec will not change the latitude of a camera, that's down to the front end. A poor codec will introduce image artefacts and perhaps reduce the resolution and soften the image, but latitude should not change. 24Mb/s AVCHD is normally pretty good these days.

To compare with 50Mbs MPEG2 you'd probably need more than 35Mbs - the higher the bitrate, the less point there is to H264/AVCHD. The compression advantages are less pronounced at higher bitrates.

And it begs the question "WHY"? Granted the file sizes may be a bit smaller, but we're probably only talking 20% lower or less for comparable quality. Is it really worth it - given that AVCHD needs more processer power for comparable performance.

If the lower bitrate meant much cheaper memory it may be worth it, but even that's not true now - the Canon records 50Mbs to Compact Flash cards.

It's just my subjective opinion that for equal bit rates (25+ Mbps), AVC mpeg4 h.264 encoding still looks better than mpeg2 even at the higher bit rates where AVC yields diminishing returns. AVC by default applies some deblocking.

AVC can employ one of two forms of entropy encoding, CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) or CAVLC (context adaptive variable length coding). The former is responsible for making h.264 coding small and efficient, but is processor intensive, for both editing and playback. It is the default AVC coding entropy for most NLEs. The latter is much less processor intensive for editing or playback, but also loses 15-20% encoding efficiency, so the quality advantage over mpeg2 for near equal file sizes is less.

Although we know that most NLEs either offer a choice of CABAC or CAVLC, or if only one will have CABAC as the default, we don't know, or at least I don't know what coding entropy AVCHD cameras use internally. The point about that, is when not knowing the distinction, it's harder to try and equate performance at certain bit rates, for example 28 Mbps or 35 Mbps AVCHD versus 50 Mbps MXF, with the exception that the latter AVCHD is new altogether if 10 bit and 422 are confirmed.

My editing experience and preference would overall be about neutral, except a lean toward Sony-Canon MXF chiefly because the camera itself is usually better than most AVCHD cams. That and the fact that certain NLEs like Vegas edit MXF natively is nice. But otherwise, I think the weakness of editing AVCHD has more to do with mediocre quality or lack of control over the specific implementation of final AVCHD rendering within a given NLE than any flaw or weakness within the h.264 codec itself.

While there is no doubt that h.264 is the more advanced codec, it's superiority comes from its ability to maintain higher quality within a smaller file size. Sounds great? Yes..but it's more compressed, thus harder to encode/decode and maintain its advantage.

And although I prefer MXF generally, I still think a final render to AVC h.264 28 Mbps CAVLC looks smoother and better (very slightly) than mpeg2 at higher bit rates, which maintains its blocky artifacting.

It's just my subjective opinion that for equal bit rates (25+ Mbps), AVC mpeg4 h.264 encoding still looks better than mpeg2 even at the higher bit rates where AVC yields diminishing returns. AVC by default applies some deblocking.

AVC can employ one of two forms of entropy encoding, CABAC (context adaptive binary arithmetic coding) or CAVLC (context adaptive variable length coding).................
I don't think there is any question that * for equal bit rates* H264 will outperform MPEG2, the question is whether it's worth it. That's why it may be better to look at the issue with comparable equal quality, and for any level see the equivalent bitrates. It follows from what you say that for H264 (and AVC-HD) it will be less than for MPEG2 - the question is how much less, and is it worth it? Lower bitrate is the upside - higher complexity is the downside.

In general, the higher the bitrates involved, the less advantage H264 has over MPEG2.

And as you rightly say, all H264 and AVC coders are certainly not equal. CABAC and CAVLC are certainly possible differences between encoders, but there's plenty more features that may or not be employed to improve compression efficiency. You very rightly ask about ".....what coding entropy AVCHD cameras use internally. The point about that, is when not knowing the distinction, it's harder to try and equate performance at certain bit rates." Very true. It's why I've tried not to get too much into numbers, other than to say I'd expect AVC-HD to need "more" than 35Mbs to rival XDCAM422 50Mbs. How much more will depend heavily on the individual encoder.

And a key point is the difference between real time and non-real time encoders. If you're compressing within an NLE in a powerful computer it's obviously more feasible to use all the possible "tricks" - it'll just take longer to encode!

But a camera has to do it in real time, and is very unlikely to have the processing power of even a moderate computer. Hence the encoding tends to be much simpler.

I'm quite prepared to accept that at lower bitrates software encoders (non-real time) for H264 may well require less than half the datarate of MPEG2 for equivalent quality. At higher bitrates (>25Mbs), and for realtime camera encoders the difference will not be anything like as great as 2x.

Which brings it round in a circle. A new AVC-HD spec of around 40Mbs may indeed rival XDCAM422 for quality - but is it worth it? Is the datarate drop of about 20% worth the complexity?

I take Alisters point about MPEG2 existing within different wrappers, but isn't such as the Panasonic implementation of AVC-HD different to such as the Sony one?

I'm quite prepared to accept that at lower bitrates software encoders (non-real time) for H264 may well require less than half the datarate of MPEG2 for equivalent quality. At higher bitrates (>25Mbs), and for realtime camera encoders the difference will not be anything like as great as 2x.

Which brings it round in a circle. A new AVC-HD spec of around 40Mbs may indeed rival XDCAM422 for quality - but is it worth it? Is the datarate drop of about 20% worth the complexity?



I agree with all your points. Is it worth it, and I think you mean 35 Mbps AVCHD? No, I do not think it is. (But I still like the h.264 codec for final renders, and I don't regard working with AVCHD from cams as presenting any particular problems.) But my preference for a shooting format remains XDCAM 422 50-100 Mbps.

And a key point is the difference between real time and non-real time encoders. If you're compressing within an NLE in a powerful computer it's obviously more feasible to use all the possible "tricks" - it'll just take longer to encode!

But a camera has to do it in real time, and is very unlikely to have the processing power of even a moderate computer. Hence the encoding tends to be much simpler.


David, I hope you don't mind me repeating from you the most important thing that anyone discussing AVCHD compression needs to understand.

There are lots of methods that can be used with AVCHD to increase the compression ratio of the video while maintaining great quality. They require the video to be analyzed in larger and larger chunks. That takes a ton of memory and processor power. Cameras just can't do it in real time. Some of the "tricks" they can use improves things in comparison to MPEG2. Maybe 20-25% smaller. Thats about it.

One thing for sure my computer would much rather edit MPEG2 versus AVCHD. In edit performance alone I have no problem giving in to the larger storage footprint of MPEG2.